Community impact of casual vs. competitive play

[Kirise]

One of my favorite Splatoon 3 Youtubers posted a video about the community impact of casual vs. competitive approaches, what they get wrong about each other, and how both can contribute to community growth when they get things right. While the video draws on his extended high-end Splatoon 3 and (especially) Super Smash Melee experience, I saw direct parallels to twinking and thought I'd post a link to the 20 minute video:

Enjoy!

 

[Chops]

It seems like he's not drawing a distinction between competitive and casual players but rather between two different approaches one could take in bringing people into a competitive scene.

But I think he, unintentionally, misses that different people are going to react differently to a wide variety of teaching methods. As a coach, I learned really quickly that some people thrive in a rough environment and some people (get this) become absolutely dominate competitors while having their hands held and feelings coddled the whole fucking way. Which is, admittedly, exhausting as a coach lol.

Like, I get the kind of thing he's going for and I dont think he was intending the implication but it was implied that you cant be a serious competitor without having thick skin for harsh criticism. And, at least in my personal experience, I've coached national champion powerlifters who would disprove that.

I think that given an environment where someones interacting personally with people they'd like to bring into a competitive scene, the onus is on the existing member of that scene to meet people where theyre at and try to modify their own behavior to best fit the new persons needs and expectations. Which is, ultimately, where I think this guys head is at. And frankly, thats just damned good coaching advice.

and yes

its damned good dating advice too.

 

[Kirise]

Like, I get the kind of thing he's going for and I dont think he was intending the implication but it was implied that you cant be a serious competitor without having thick skin for harsh criticism. And, at least in my personal experience, I've coached national champion powerlifters who would disprove that.

I didn't pick up an implication that serious competitors needed resilience for harsh criticism. Instead, I took that serious competitors need receptivity to feedback, and coddled feedback doesn't give serious (or aspiring) competitors anything to chew on. With that said...

I think that given an environment where someones interacting personally with people they'd like to bring into a competitive scene, the onus is on the existing member of that scene to meet people where theyre at and try to modify their own behavior to best fit the new persons needs and expectations. Which is, ultimately, where I think this guys head is at. And frankly, thats just damned good coaching advice.

...meeting someone where they're at, makes for a fundamentally important skill as a teacher or a coach. I'd go so far as to mark it the greatest distinguishing skill for those looking to help others. The video's pacing made the last part feel too abstract for me, watering down this point.

In the past, I treated casual inclusivity and competitive exclusivity in twinking as an irresolvable paradox that required significant personal and community effort to work through. Gem's reframing of that as a tension rather than a paradox made me realize that a community could simultaneously leverage both inclusivity and exclusivity for community growth, rather than prioritize one over the other.

 

[Azeroh]

I’d agree with the video, but with the caveat that it’s on the game developers to create an environment for the community to thrive.

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix. Game developers have the power to manipulate the environment. lower the skill cap or perhaps lower the barrier to entry, be less or more intrusive, the point is they have the power in their hands and they are the only ones with the power in their hands. You can hate certain people that do scummy things in the game you like, but hating them isn’t going to stop them.

 

[Chops]

Gem's reframing of that as a tension rather than a paradox made me realize that a community could simultaneously leverage both inclusivity and exclusivity for community growth, rather than prioritize one over the other.

yea, i think he did a really good job here.

And to bring it around to twinking, I think the boys in the 20s arena scene did a great job of hitting this sweet spot. Although all the serious guys are light years ahead of me, I never felt like they were talking down to me or just stomping me for sport. I've never met someone who genuinely wants their competition to get better like @Bop does.

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves

I completely disagree with this. One has only to look at twinking to see that its possible to build a competitive community that can limit scumfuckery. Now, there will always be disagreements about what is and isnt scumfuckery but a general social consensus arises over time.

A perfect example is twink wargames. Class stacking is usually prohibited, OP class/specs are often limited, scummy consumes banned. There are even sometimes "gentlemens agreements" around not contesting O/D splits because it makes for more interesting games. People who willfully violate these rules often find themselves not invited to future games. You can build power outside of the formal superstructure of the games systems.

 

[Azeroh]

yea, i think he did a really good job here.

And to bring it around to twinking, I think the boys in the 20s arena scene did a great job of hitting this sweet spot. Although all the serious guys are light years ahead of me, I never felt like they were talking down to me or just stomping me for sport. I've never met someone who genuinely wants their competition to get better like @Bop does.

I completely disagree with this. One has only to look at twinking to see that its possible to build a competitive community that can limit scumfuckery. Now, there will always be disagreements about what is and isnt scumfuckery but a general social consensus arises over time.

A perfect example is twink wargames. Class stacking is usually prohibited, OP class/specs are often limited, scummy consumes banned. There are even sometimes "gentlemens agreements" around not contesting O/D splits because it makes for more interesting games. People who willfully violate these rules often find themselves not invited to future games. You can build power outside of the formal superstructure of the games systems.

“It’s on the game developers to create what environments they want because it’s impossible for the community do it it themselves *without power being in the mix*”. You’re right, it’s possible to make a community without scum fuckery if you have the power to stop the scum fuckery. Like wargames, you have power over who plays and doesn’t play in your wargame.
[doublepost=1674275490,1674275246][/doublepost]“You can build power outside the formal superstructure of the games systems” you can, that’s true, but that power only matters in the context of changing the game if it has power over the game. You can make a discord community about a single player game, but the “power” the discord community has does not affect the playerbase.

 

[Chops]

You can make a discord community about a single player game, but the “power” the discord community has does not affect the playerbase.

But it can and it does. Look at the social consensus around, say, Diablo 2 speedrunning and whether segment runs were kosher, running without sound to limit file loading times, etc. All practices adopted and abandoned around mutual consent built up in a community over time that influenced player behavior in a single player game. All without dev input.

Saying its all on the devs ignores that gaming communities create and abandon social mores around all types of games in all types of genres. Devs, no doubt, have a huge influence and the design of their games can and do incentivize certain behaviors. But it is certainly not impossible for a games various communities to develop their own community environments completely absent a developers influence or even their intentions.

 

[Kirise]

And to bring it around to twinking, I think the boys in the 20s arena scene did a great job of hitting this sweet spot. Although all the serious guys are light years ahead of me, I never felt like they were talking down to me or just stomping me for sport. I've never met someone who genuinely wants their competition to get better like @Bop does.

+1 to Bop, even for as relatively little time as I spent in 20s arenas. Everyone was extremely tolerant of my ignorance of a class I've played for over a decade.

power only matters in the context of changing the game if it has power over the game. You can make a discord community about a single player game, but the “power” the discord community has does not affect the playerbase.

While I can't speak to single player games, I can mention numerous multiplayer games that saw player influence creating a feedback loop that developers acknowledged and in some cases, were forced to accept and work with. The history of WoW twinking features many examples where Blizzard made far-reaching changes in response to our niche playstyle explorations. In the original Street Fighter 2, player discovery of particular move combinations led to both an evolution of player skill, and (more importantly for the context of this thread) of player expectations for how the game worked, in ways the developers never intended. Subsequent versions of Street Fighter 2 required Capcom developers to accurately and consistently program for previously bugged combos, because "fixing" them would fly in the face of player expectations for what particular characters could do in that game.

Successful developers do not and cannot sit on high and dictate game terms to players. I think people get the notion that artists create and people consume, regardless of the media those artists leverage. Music, visual art, video games, writing...anything that requires creation doesn't just spawn consumption. Creation and consumption are collaborative, even if asynchronous, and there's no quicker way to kill art than to deify artists as gatekeepers for their art.

 

[Azeroh]

But it can and it does. Look at the social consensus around, say, Diablo 2 speedrunning and whether segment runs were kosher, running without sound to limit file loading times, etc. All practices adopted and abandoned around mutual consent built up in a community over time that influenced player behavior in a single player game. All without dev input.

Saying its all on the devs ignores that gaming communities create and abandon social mores around all types of games in all types of genres. Devs, no doubt, have a huge influence and the design of their games can and do incentivize certain behaviors. But it is certainly not impossible for a games various communities to develop their own community environments completely absent a developers influence or even their intentions.

You misunderstand what I mean by “environment”. A community can make sub-communities/niches of doing certain things in a game, a community could set up community ran events, a community could do lots of things except change the “environment”. My definition of the “environment” is the precedent set by game behavior in the game. A community could change their game behavior naturally over “maturing”, “improving” or “learning”, but there are going to be groups of malicious players who will not change or will change for the worse. In a game that allows scummy behavior, there will be groups of people who will enact such scummy behavior. My main point is the game mechanics set the game behavior, so therefore whoever controls the game mechanics also controls the game behavior. You can give me countless examples of community ran projects in certain games, but I will keep going back to the fact that in those projects a group/a individual has power over the others in some sort of way. This causes the same dichotomy between devs/players, and it’s just a difference in label.

Perhaps I explained myself poorly, but I will just explain myself again. The person who can control what other people do dictates what the other people do/can do. It can be devs, it could be any group of players, the governing party controls what the “environment” is. And the majority of the time, the governing party of the game is the game developers. That’s why I said game developers instead of just “governing party”. But in certain games such as Minecraft, the governing party would be the server owners. It’s the exact same dichotomy, it’s just different labels.

+1 to Bop, even for as relatively little time as I spent in 20s arenas. Everyone was extremely tolerant of my ignorance of a class I've played for over a decade.



While I can't speak to single player games, I can mention numerous multiplayer games that saw player influence creating a feedback loop that developers acknowledged and in some cases, were forced to accept and work with. The history of WoW twinking features many examples where Blizzard made far-reaching changes in response to our niche playstyle explorations. In the original Street Fighter 2, player discovery of particular move combinations led to both an evolution of player skill, and (more importantly for the context of this thread) of player expectations for how the game worked, in ways the developers never intended. Subsequent versions of Street Fighter 2 required Capcom developers to accurately and consistently program for previously bugged combos, because "fixing" them would fly in the face of player expectations for what particular characters could do in that game.

Successful developers do not and cannot sit on high and dictate game terms to players. I think people get the notion that artists create and people consume, regardless of the media those artists leverage. Music, visual art, video games, writing...anything that requires creation doesn't just spawn consumption. Creation and consumption are collaborative, even if asynchronous, and there's no quicker way to kill art than to deify artists as gatekeepers for their art.

You’re right, the community could convince the game developers to add certain changes, but who is the one who enacts the changes they want? That’s right, the game developers. All the power is in the game developers hands.

 

[Selaya]

I’d agree with the video, but with the caveat that it’s on the game developers to create an environment for the community to thrive.

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix. Game developers have the power to manipulate the environment. lower the skill cap or perhaps lower the barrier to entry, be less or more intrusive, the point is they have the power in their hands and they are the only ones with the power in their hands. You can hate certain people that do scummy things in the game you like, but hating them isn’t going to stop them.

rlx zoomer most of these guys are far too busy trying to scam ppl w/ lootboxes

the onus is def on the community. swim or sink yadda dadda

 

[Kirise]

The person who can control what other people do dictates what the other people do/can do. It can be devs, it could be any group of players, the governing party controls what the “environment” is. And the majority of the time, the governing party of the game is the game developers. That’s why I said game developers instead of just “governing party”. But in certain games such as Minecraft, the governing party would be the server owners. It’s the exact same dichotomy, it’s just different labels.

You keep trying to associate technological control with player control, dismissing the power of consent involved on the player side. Yes, the devs of a game provide parameters by which players participate, and those parameters directly influence how a game works. But that doesn't mean the devs control the players. A game isn't some fishbowl where players remain trapped inside. Players retain their power of influence all the way up to and including the power to revoke participation, nullifying the game itself.

You’re right, the community could convince the game developers to add certain changes, but who is the one who enacts the changes they want? That’s right, the game developers. All the power is in the game developers hands.

Too many game mods and hacks say otherwise. Even as developers provide API parameters and "dictate" what players can and cannot mod, players can choose their level of consent, and repurpose both game mechanics and technical features, Terms of Service be damned.

 

[Chops]

Someone didnt watch Why Its Rude To Suck At Warcraft and the discussion around player decisions, developer control, free/instrumental play and the feedback loop of paratext and broadly adopted community expectations dramatically shifting the way a game is developed over time.

no *youre* trying to shoehorn a paradigm shifting video into every discussion you've had over the past 3 months

 

[Azeroh]

You keep trying to associate technological control with player control, dismissing the power of consent involved on the player side. Yes, the devs of a game provide parameters by which players participate, and those parameters directly influence how a game works. But that doesn't mean the devs control the players. A game isn't some fishbowl where players remain trapped inside. Players retain their power of influence all the way up to and including the power to revoke participation, nullifying the game itself.



Too many game mods and hacks say otherwise. Even as developers provide API parameters and "dictate" what players can and cannot mod, players can choose their level of consent, and repurpose both game mechanics and technical features, Terms of Service be damned.

Yes, the devs aren’t mind controlling the players to do their bidding, but if you can’t understand that devs have the power to completely change player behavior then I don’t know what I can say to you that would change your mind. Players have influence, that’s true, but that influence isn’t powerful enough to control a community *UNLESS* the power is given to them (community servers and such). You talk about the power of consent, what power does a random person playing a game (which has no mods/community servers for the sake of the argument) have that causes change? You can talk to me about the countless tales of dev/player communication but I can tell you the countless tales of devs ignoring their playerbase. It’s all in the hands of the game devs (most of the time). Also, one more thing, not playing a game does not nullify the game, other people can still play the game without you there. Just because you can stop playing a game doesn’t give you the power to dictate a community, your power to “talk with your money” and leave the game doesn’t affect the games playerbase at all (unless you’re part of a playerbase with like 10 people).

I was responding to you saying that Players have influence because they can convince game devs to change something about their game. You are applying a whole different paradigm which you weren’t even talking about, a whole paradigm that I don’t even disagree with you. You can’t just switch up your argument so you could get a “1-up” on me lmao

Someone didnt watch Why Its Rude To Suck At Warcraft and the discussion around player decisions, developer control, free/instrumental play and the feedback loop of paratext and broadly adopted community expectations dramatically shifting the way a game is developed over time.

no *youre* trying to shoehorn a paradigm shifting video into every discussion you've had over the past 3 months

true, I have said and truly believe that the community has no power whatsoever in any situation or universe to change anything ever. Based.
[doublepost=1674324441,1674324023][/doublepost]I’m going to give my argument again, just a refresher so nobody says I believe something I don’t (surely that won’t happen)

A community of players does not inherently have the capability of creating or changing an environment if the community does not have the power to control one or another. I don’t believe a community CAN NOT have the capability of creating or changing a environment when they have power to control one or another, I’m saying they can’t create a environment without the power to control one another (which is a majority of the time, sadly).

 

[Chops]

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix.

ah, yes. so who has that power?

Game developers have the power to manipulate the environment. lower the skill cap or perhaps lower the barrier to entry, be less or more intrusive, the point is they have the power in their hands and they are the only ones with the power in their hands.

ah, only game devs have power.

I don’t believe a community CAN NOT have the capability of creating or changing a environment when they have power to control one or another, I’m saying they can’t create a environment without the power to control one another

And you believe *only* the devs have that power.

So, yea. You're gonna get pushback on that.

 

[Azeroh]

ah, yes. so who has that power?

ah, only game devs have power.

And you believe *only* the devs have that power.

So, yea. You're gonna get pushback on that.

out of context

Perhaps I explained myself poorly, but I will just explain myself again. The person who can control what other people do dictates what the other people do/can do. It can be devs, it could be any group of players, the governing party controls what the “environment” is. And the majority of the time, the governing party of the game is the game developers. That’s why I said game developers instead of just “governing party”. But in certain games such as Minecraft, the governing party would be the server owners. It’s the exact same dichotomy, it’s just different labels.

this is me saying that its whoever has the power (the governing power) that controls the environment. this includes, maybe, i dont know the community? i say in my message that the community could have power over eachother? "it can be the devs, it could be any group of players". you either didnt read this, read this and forgot, or read this and willingfully ignored this because it disproves what you think i believe.

I’d agree with the video, but with the caveat that it’s on the game developers to create an environment for the community to thrive.

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix. Game developers have the power to manipulate the environment. lower the skill cap or perhaps lower the barrier to entry, be less or more intrusive, the point is they have the power in their hands and they are the only ones with the power in their hands. You can hate certain people that do scummy things in the game you like, but hating them isn’t going to stop them.

i say here that it's on the game developers to make the environment because the community can't without the community having any power, the quote you nitpicked within full context has an obvious meaning of "when the community has no power, the game developers do". you can say that isnt what I said, but if you look at what I said honestly, you can see that I say the "game devs have all the power" IMMEDIATELY AFTER i say "its on the game developers to create what environment they want because it's impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix". do you honestly believe I think that a community can never have any power? when i have recently given examples of communities having power like in minecraft with servers and such? who would believe a community has NO POWER and will never have POWER? do you think I'm that stupid to think that? it's case by case, certain devs give their playerbase a certain amount of power over each other.

so, yea. you're gonna get pushback on that.

 

[Kirise]

Been awhile since I had a good forum dustup. Let's see if I can do better.

Yes, the devs aren’t mind controlling the players to do their bidding, but if you can’t understand that devs have the power to completely change player behavior then I don’t know what I can say to you that would change your mind. Players have influence, that’s true, but that influence isn’t powerful enough to control a community *UNLESS* the power is given to them (community servers and such).

Am I misreading you here? Of course devs have the power to completely change player behavior through design changes. But that's not the point of yours I contend. Rather, I contend that dev power is not the only effective change agent, nor the greatest one.

You talk about the power of consent, what power does a random person playing a game (which has no mods/community servers for the sake of the argument) have that causes change?

A random person has no power playing a game. But even a small collection of people can (and do) change games through their power of influence, let alone larger swathes of a playerbase.

You can talk to me about the countless tales of dev/player communication but I can tell you the countless tales of devs ignoring their playerbase. It’s all in the hands of the game devs (most of the time). Also, one more thing, not playing a game does not nullify the game, other people can still play the game without you there. Just because you can stop playing a game doesn’t give you the power to dictate a community, your power to “talk with your money” and leave the game doesn’t affect the games playerbase at all (unless you’re part of a playerbase with like 10 people).

On an individual, player-by-player basis, I wholeheartedly agree. But groups of players individually committing similar actions (i.e. not necessarily organized with each other) or coming to similar conclusions on their own, exert significant influence. Regardless, this misses the point. ...Which I think you also allude to here:

I was responding to you saying that Players have influence because they can convince game devs to change something about their game. You are applying a whole different paradigm which you weren’t even talking about, a whole paradigm that I don’t even disagree with you. You can’t just switch up your argument so you could get a “1-up” on me lmao

Ignoring the personal potshot for a moment, you say you responded to me saying that players exert influence on developers to make game changes. I don't see how that's a whole different paradigm based on your assertion that:

It’s on the game developers to create what environment they want because it’s impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix. Game developers have the power to manipulate the environment. lower the skill cap or perhaps lower the barrier to entry, be less or more intrusive, the point is they have the power in their hands and they are the only ones with the power in their hands. You can hate certain people that do scummy things in the game you like, but hating them isn’t going to stop them.

You say devs have the power in their hands, and are the only ones with power in their hands. That's the distinction with which I contend.

A community of players does not inherently have the capability of creating or changing an environment if the community does not have the power to control one or another. I don’t believe a community CAN NOT have the capability of creating or changing a environment when they have power to control one or another, I’m saying they can’t create a environment without the power to control one another (which is a majority of the time, sadly).

I read this paragraph four times, and the meaning I took from it was, players cannot change a game environment nor the player community unless the players have power to technically change that environment and directly control players in that playerbase. Is that right? Because if it is, we can attain greater clarity on where we disagree. Which brings us back to this:

i say here that it's on the game developers to make the environment because the community can't without the community having any power, the quote you nitpicked within full context has an obvious meaning of "when the community has no power, the game developers do". you can say that isnt what I said, but if you look at what I said honestly, you can see that I say the "game devs have all the power" IMMEDIATELY AFTER i say "its on the game developers to create what environment they want because it's impossible for the community to do it themselves without power being in the mix". do you honestly believe I think that a community can never have any power? when i have recently given examples of communities having power like in minecraft with servers and such? who would believe a community has NO POWER and will never have POWER? do you think I'm that stupid to think that? it's case by case, certain devs give their playerbase a certain amount of power over each other.

I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you bring a stubborn insistence to define power (in this context) as technological control, contrary to examples of other successful exertions of power. If I misread you, then I welcome more clarity.

 

[Donor]

im 2 lazy 2 read all this shit
so ill just assume its communist propaganda

 

[Chops]

so ill just assume its communist propaganda

You can build power outside of the formal superstructure

 

[Azeroh]

Been awhile since I had a good forum dustup. Let's see if I can do better.



Am I misreading you here? Of course devs have the power to completely change player behavior through design changes. But that's not the point of yours I contend. Rather, I contend that dev power is not the only effective change agent, nor the greatest one.



A random person has no power playing a game. But even a small collection of people can (and do) change games through their power of influence, let alone larger swathes of a playerbase.



On an individual, player-by-player basis, I wholeheartedly agree. But groups of players individually committing similar actions (i.e. not necessarily organized with each other) or coming to similar conclusions on their own, exert significant influence. Regardless, this misses the point. ...Which I think you also allude to here:



Ignoring the personal potshot for a moment, you say you responded to me saying that players exert influence on developers to make game changes. I don't see how that's a whole different paradigm based on your assertion that:



You say devs have the power in their hands, and are the only ones with power in their hands. That's the distinction with which I contend.



I read this paragraph four times, and the meaning I took from it was, players cannot change a game environment nor the player community unless the players have power to technically change that environment and directly control players in that playerbase. Is that right? Because if it is, we can attain greater clarity on where we disagree. Which brings us back to this:



I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you bring a stubborn insistence to define power (in this context) as technological control, contrary to examples of other successful exertions of power. If I misread you, then I welcome more clarity.

"Am I misreading you here? Of course devs have the power to completely change player behavior through design changes. But that's not the point of yours I contend. Rather, I contend that dev power is not the only effective change agent, nor the greatest one."

you can say that a group of players have power, but they only have "power" if the devs allow them to have power. a group of players can be really annoying and pick at devs trying to get them to add/remove something from their game, but its up to the devs whether they think the change being presented to them is good for the game. you can call that "power", but then we would just have to agree to disagree there. I do not see that as power, if the developer does not agree with your change your "power" would dissipate.

this power can be useful, it can change the community and such but I simply believe this power isn't enough for the community to self-dictate. in the statement you are replying, i acknowledge that people have influence but it isnt enough to dictate a community.

"A random person has no power playing a game. But even a small collection of people can (and do) change games through their power of influence, let alone larger swathes of a playerbase."

they have the “power” to suggest changes, they do not have the power to enact such changes. the “power” is inherently different. the power you need to dictate a community is the power to enact changes, which the community (most of the time) doesn't have. once again, it depends on the game. wow as an example, you can talk about "twink integrity" and shame people for using consumables, but you can't stop them.


"On an individual, player-by-player basis, I wholeheartedly agree. But groups of players individually committing similar actions (i.e. not necessarily organized with each other) or coming to similar conclusions on their own, exert significant influence. Regardless, this misses the point. ...Which I think you also allude to here:"

once again, the community can have influence, but that influence is not sufficient to self-dictate themselves if they do not have the tools at hand. you can suggest changes, you can cause the game to change over time, but if the devs fucked off and something needed change you can't do anything. (most of the time).

“Ignoring the personal potshot for a moment, you say you responded to me saying that players exert influence on developers to make game changes. I don't see how that's a whole different paradigm based on your assertion that:”

"You say devs have the power in their hands, and are the only ones with power in their hands. That's the distinction with which I contend."

i said devs are the ones with power in their hands after I said they are the ones who have to control the environment because the community can not do it themselves if they don't have power. its very clear in the statement that I'm talking about situations where the community has no "power" in the mix. why would you qualify a situation and then after that situation you talk about a situation that you were not talking about before? "Most of the time, people who watch movies eat popcorn with their movie! (this is just an example not a representation of what i believe) But also, movies rhymes with broom keys, so we should be talking about broom closets". I was talking about the dynamic of devs having all the power, and exclaiming that the community has no power in that dynamic of the devs having all the power (which is a large majority of the time).

“I read this paragraph four times, and the meaning I took from it was, players cannot change a game environment nor the player community unless the players have power to technically change that environment and directly control players in that playerbase. Is that right? Because if it is, we canattain greater clarity on where we disagree. Which brings us back to this:”

yes, a player can not change the environment/what people do if they do not have the power to change the game mechanics or punish people.

“I don't think you're stupid, but I do think you bring a stubborn insistence to define power (in this context) as technological control, contrary to examples of other successful exertions of power. If I misread you, then I welcome more clarity.”

the power you need to dictate a community is the power to change the environment. You have to be able to control others if you want to change how others play a game, you could influence people to change how they play but there will be groups of people who will not change. Your “power” as a individual or as a group is useless against those people, the only power that can change the entire community is the power to enact change. You could say “well if I suggest to the devs to change the game in a way, is that not a simple cause and effect?”, but I would just say that your influence is dependent on if the dev agrees with you. Its also not your action, it was the developers decision to enact that change. Because you brought up the change to them doesn’t change the fact the dev has the power to add the change or not.

im 2 lazy 2 read all this shit
so ill just assume its communist propaganda

true, edy hacked his account. I’m surprised he hasn’t called me a fascist yet

 

[Kirise]

i said devs are the ones with power in their hands after I said they are the ones who have to control the environment because the community can not do it themselves if they don't have power. its very clear in the statement that I'm talking about situations where the community has no "power" in the mix. why would you qualify a situation and then after that situation you talk about a situation that you were not talking about before?

To answer that, I think we're talking past each other here, based on what you say here:

the power you need to dictate a community is the power to change the environment. You have to be able to control others if you want to change how others play a game, you could influence people to change how they play but there will be groups of people who will not change. Your “power” as a individual or as a group is useless against those people, the only power that can change the entire community is the power to enact change. You could say “well if I suggest to the devs to change the game in a way, is that not a simple cause and effect?”, but I would just say that your influence is dependent on if the dev agrees with you. Its also not your action, it was the developers decision to enact that change. Because you brought up the change to them doesn’t change the fact the dev has the power to add the change or not.

You're saying (if I read you correctly) that while player community influence can make an impact within subcommunities and particular chosen activities (like twinking), that is secondary to the fact that players remain beholden to the game in which they play. I can talk all I want about player influence large and small, impacting other players and so forth, but if the game permits someone to do something other players don't want, there's no stopping that player, because the capability is coded into the very game itself. With no in-game way to compel others, all of the power rests with those who dictate the game environment that allows for such capabilities.

Hopefully I understood correctly what you meant, and thank you for your extra effort to provide clarity.